Jump to content
Science Forums

Is secular humanism and or atheism harmful to society?


RevOfAllRevs

Recommended Posts

First a disclaimer. I hold no ill will towards any group of people including of course atheists or secular humanists. Being a Christian all people are to be loved, regardless of their beliefs. However that doesn't mean that we don't have opinions concerning if a lifestyle or paradigm is harmful to society etc.

 

 

Is secular humanism and or atheism harmful to society? I think that it can be in the modern age. SH/A (Secular humanism/Atheism) is a wonderful benign system that on the first glance seems like a very good way of life. I feel that it could be a morally correct system if not for the greed of man. However, that said, I think it can, and may have led to such atrocities such as the death camps in wartime Germany and Stalin’s Russia and for that matter Pol Pots killing fields.

 

Why would I say this? SH most high authority is man himself. Hitler broke no laws* (in Germany) after he came to power. The murdering of the Jewish people was legal. That is the power of human secularism. In addition Its my opinion that SH/A can lead to such awful things as euthanasia and late term abortions. The reason I make this assumption is because its easy to see how a slippery slope can begin. SH/A has no moral absolutes generally speaking and the morals it does possess can change, unlike say the moral absolutes provided by Christianity ie the ten commandants.

 

Comments discuss…

 

; {>

 

 

*...... Hitler never broke the law, he just made the illegal, legal ...

12 posts*-*11 authors*-*Last post:*Jul 20, 2007Hitler never broke the law, he just made the illegal, legal. ... not be allowed to pursue contempt charges no matter what Congress says. ...

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/www.democraticunderground.com/.../duboard.php?az...all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer, of course, is that it CAN be... much like the lack of belief in the tooth fairy or suggestion of the non-existence of Thor CAN be harmful to society.

 

However, what your question misses is the fact that atheism is not an ideology. It is simply a a lack of theism, and your question reads (to me, at least) like, "Is rationality and demand for evidence prior to accepting extraordinary claims harmful to society?" In other words, rather silly.

 

 

Now, you might get some traction with the humanism side of the equation, since that IS an ideology, and that HAS informed dangerous action (such as how Chris Hitchens supported and actively campaigned for war in Iraq informed by his Humanist ideology).

 

However, the moment you try to equivocate this with atheism... you appear foolish. Just a friendly note to help your thread gain traction and avoid pitfalls which have been extensively covered at this forum repeatedly. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I agree with your reply except for your last paragraph. : }> Maybe I misunderstand you or you me. Aren't most secular humanists atheists? That is the only thing I meant when I used this ; SH/A. I suppose I could simply say secular humanists if it offends anyone. Maybe you could expand a bit on the last paragraph?

 

; {>

 

ps I suppose I could say that I agree that religions have a similar way to go bad, such as Muslims beading infidels or some christian atrocities or even Buddhist or Hindu violence etc, but we addressed, or at least touched on that in the sister thread ie Is region harmful to society"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you could expand a bit on the last paragraph?

Atheism is not an ideology. It provides no useful information about the person, since it is not a worldview (any more than my lack of belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns is an "ideology" or a "worldview").

 

Atheism is a label for a person who is not theist... it is not an ideology. You may as well be asking if the color red is harmful to society. It's silly, and misguided IMO.

 

 

My suggestion was merely to focus your thread on humanism since that really could turn into a fruitful discussion. You sabotage the potential success of this thread by bringing forth the tired old canard of atheism being a belief system (a claim which is patently false and serves only to strawman those to whom the label is applied).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheism is not an ideology. It provides no useful information about the person, since it is not a worldview (any more than my lack of belief that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns is an "ideology" or a "worldview").

 

Atheism is a label for a person who is not theist... it is not an ideology. You may as well be asking if the color red is harmful to society. It's silly, and misguided IMO.

 

 

My suggestion was merely to focus your thread on humanism since that really could turn into a fruitful discussion. You sabotage the potential success of this thread by bringing forth the tired old canard of atheism being a belief system (a claim which is patently false and serves only to strawman those to whom the label is applied).

 

Well I hope that disagreeing with you isn't a problem! Atheism has many definitions which I provided a link of the various definitions. When I say that Atheism is a belief system I am speaking most of the time of a agnostic atheist.

 

Onward! ~

 

There is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. 'Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Venus” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Venus.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Venus, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Venus. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference. I feel where many people err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God. Nevertheless that is material for another thread. (stay tuned for a thread about atheism and its definitions etc)

 

I might say that if a small portion of a post is inaccurate we shouldn't let that harm the entire thing. Again in this case I was using an agnostic atheist as an example. So I stand by my words, but thank you for the heads up. I think that all debate should be civil and remain free of name calling etc. Its nearly impossible to debate without some flame so that is to be expected, however out right glaring hostility has no place save for a Nazi SS death camp. Agreed?

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay - let's quit the nitpicking.

 

You're asking the antithesis to the "Is religion harmful to society" thread.

 

Therefore, my answer:

 

Theists believe that the only absolute morals are issued by God. This does not hold. First of all, what is meant by "morality"? Is it "doing good for others"? Is it the willful suffering of the individual for the benefit of others?

 

In a famous experiment performed by Jules H. Masserman, S. Wechkin and W. Terris in 1964, a group of macaques were taken where half were put in cages with fruit dangling in front of them, whilst the other half were strapped to electric chairs in plain view of the caged macaques. The fruit was attached to a string which closed the circuit leading to a macaque on the electric chair. The macaque pulling on the fruit got a handy snack, and the poor macaque riding ol' sparky writhed in pain and agony, right in front of the macaque happily eating away on his banana. Pretty soon they connected the dots, and most of the macaques refused to partake in any more fruit, seeing as there seemed to be a clear causal connection between them snacking, and their fellows suffering. They would rather go hungry than be the cause of their fellow macaque's pain. Is this the beginning of morality, as we know it? Do keep in mind that as far as we know, no macaque Moses have received any instruction from on high as to how he or she should behave towards their fellows.

 

"Morality", more likely, is older than Moses, or, for that matter, humanity itself. "Morality", in the Biblical sense, is the mere enumeration (if not pen on paper then chisel on rock, at least) of deeply seated genetically propagated behavioral traits that benefits group selection. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" keeps the peace. "Thou Shalt Not Covet They Neighbour's Wife" is more of the same, and gives homage to the male dominance hierarchy visible amongst primates. It could just as well have said "Thou Shalt Submit To The Alpha Male", and not intrude upon his harem.

 

If anything, Moses seems to have committed a bit of plagiarism from nature.

 

The above just to illustrate that there is no conceivable way in which Religion is the safekeepers and issuers of morality. They did hijack it many years ago, though. And they still pretend to be the sole proprietors when it comes to anything "moral".

 

Therefore, the question asked in this thread is rather moot. Animal societies have safeguards to keep the peace. Animal societies rarely engage in violence in the troop. Males might bump heads in springtime when the battle for fathering the next generation is intense, but they have developed tools with which they pretend to fight. The hectic head-butting of male deer when they partake in this seasonal dominance battles rarely lead to bloodshed. It's bad for the group. Intraspecific violence, however, is intense, where one troop of chimps may physically battle with another troop of chimps with a level of violence and mortality that is never seen amongst members of the same troop. In the same vein, with or without religion, humans find it in themselves to live peacefully in small groups, and warfare breaking out with neighboring groups. It's all about group selection. Very Darwinian.

 

It can rightly, then, be said that Religion might be an issuer of morality for a select group of humans who might think so, but that the ultimate source of morality (even for the believers) is a guy called Charles Darwin.

 

And having used a bit of a roundabout to get to my point, no - the lack of belief or religion of any kind will have no more nor less impact on the "morality" of the society under discussion. Humans will still be perfectly moral. A bad person will forever be a bad person, whether he's a believer or not. And a good person will forever be a good person - religious or not. And a secular society might just be more "moral" and more "just", in that they cut out the middleman and deal in truth - not half-truths and metaphors.

 

If you need a little black book set in Times New Roman at 5pt type bound in very thin 40gsm paper to tell you what's right and what's wrong, then not even God can help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know what you mean by nitpicking, but I agree its aggravating. I was simply attempting to explain my position so we could discuss the topic at hand with each of us knowing the others stance.

 

Theists believe that the only absolute morals are issued by God.

 

Yes and fittingly its called absolutism vs. say Cultural relativism (just an example that opposes absolutism in most cases).

 

This does not hold. First of all, what is meant by "morality"? Is it "doing good for others"? Is it the willful suffering of the individual for the benefit of others

 

I would define morals as knowing the difference between right and wrong or “accepted moral standards: standards of conduct that are accepted as right or proper”. Encarta ® World English Dictionary ©

 

In a famous experiment performed by Jules H. Masserman, S. Wechkin and W. Terris in 1964, a group of macaques were taken where half were put in cages with fruit >>>>Brevity Snip<<<< Do keep in mind that as far as we know, no macaque Moses have received any instruction from on high as to how he or she should behave towards their fellows.

 

Well in that experiment 13% chose to gain food at the expense of causing the agony of another macaque, that’s interesting and goes to show that maybe animals have some sort of moral conduct. It does not mean anything else. The moral standards handed down by God are unchangeable standards that does not mean that we can not add to the list, the important thing to remember is that we can not under any circumstances disobey the standards. This is the prime reason that unchanging moral standards are much better than man being able to write them down as he goes along. SH (secular humanism) can change the moral law as culture changes and its not too difficult to see how euthanasia of the old or the sick or? May be morally correct one day if the moral code can be disobeyed.

 

"Morality", more likely, is older than Moses, or, for that matter, humanity itself. "Morality", in the Biblical sense, is the mere enumeration (if not pen on paper then chisel on rock, at least) of deeply seated genetically propagated behavioral traits that benefits group selection. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" keeps the peace. "Thou Shalt Not Covet They Neighbour's Wife" is more of the same, and gives homage to the male dominance hierarchy visible amongst primates. It could just as well have said "Thou Shalt Submit To The Alpha Male", and not intrude upon his harem.

 

The age or morals does not make a difference. You see the ten commandants are the ONLY morals that we should not ‘break’. I would agree with you that as long as man has been self aware he possessed some sort of morals. But again for Christians there are only one moral code that we should not disobey and that is the ten commandants. (The Mosaic Law should not be confused with the Noahide laws additionally the Mosaic law begins with the ten command but includes more law, traditional Christians are only bound by the ten commandants).

 

 

If anything, Moses seems to have committed a bit of plagiarism from nature.

 

Of course that is an personal opinion. Christians say their law comes from God.

 

The above just to illustrate that there is no conceivable way in which Religion is the safekeepers and issuers of morality. They did hijack it many years ago, though. And they still pretend to be the sole proprietors when it comes to anything "moral".

 

Again we didn’t hijack anything, we simply took the laws that God give us and attempt to obey them. There is no law against the laws being similar or the same as other moral laws in other religions or non religions. We don’t say you have to obey the ten commandants but rather that we have to obey the ten commandants as well as we can. We could get into a long history of the moral laws and who wrote what but I think that isn’t the point. The point is that we live by the moral code that God gave Moses. Everyone that isn’t Christian can make up your own morals (hee hee)…

 

Therefore, the question asked in this thread is rather moot. Animal societies have safeguards to keep the peace. Animal societies rarely engage in violence in the troop.

 

Not so. Everything I have read about chimps for example seem to say they are violent. It wouldn’t make any difference if chimps were very moral creatures. Christians would say hey cheetah go on and live by your morals we Christians already have ours!

 

Males might bump heads in springtime when the battle for fathering the next generation is intense, but they have developed tools with which they pretend to fight. The hectic head-butting of male deer when they partake in this seasonal dominance battles rarely lead to bloodshed. It's bad for the group. Intraspecific violence, however, is intense, where one troop of chimps may physically battle with another troop of chimps with a level of violence and mortality that is never seen amongst members of the same troop. In the same vein, with or without religion, humans find it in themselves to live peacefully in small groups, and warfare breaking out with neighboring groups. It's all about group selection. Very Darwinian.

 

So, its very Darwin. So what? Still we Christians live by the ten commandants. I haven’t said other creatures don’t have morals. Or that other people don’t have morals, in fact I said in many posts that I know some atheists that are the most moral people I know. What I did say was that if there is not a standard that is immutable it can lead down a slippery slope to all sorts of bad things.

 

It can rightly, then, be said that Religion might be an issuer of morality for a select group of humans who might think so, but that the ultimate source of morality (even for the believers) is a guy called Charles Darwin.

 

I wouldn’t agree to that. Where did darwin comment on primate mortality? And its not even a given that animals have morals. There is no way to prove if the animals are responding to environmental stimuli etc instead of making a moral decision (highly unlikely). I love my animals but doubt that they are self aware.

 

And having used a bit of a roundabout to get to my point, no - the lack of belief or religion of any kind will have no more nor less impact on the "morality" of the society under discussion. Humans will still be perfectly moral.

 

Maybe, maybe not. That is yet to be seen, or proven. In any case it doesn’t matter. I haven’t said that Christians are the only moral creatures, but rather the absolute moral standards are less likely to lead to atrocity than secular humanistic morals, because if you can re write moral conduct its you can make anything morally acceptable. (as Hitler did making Jewish people dogs or worse and perfectly ok to kill them)

 

A bad person will forever be a bad person, whether he's a believer or not. And a good person will forever be a good person - religious or not. And a secular society might just be more "moral" and more "just", in that they cut out the middleman and deal in truth - not half-truths and metaphors.

 

Again I disagree. A bad person can change, I did. And a good person can go bad. There is no middlemen etc only a set of unchangeable moral standards that we Christians attempt to live by.

 

If you need a little black book set in Times New Roman at 5pt type bound in very thin 40gsm paper to tell you what's right and what's wrong, then not even God can help you.

 

Judge not lest ye be judged...Ha ha I am sure you are joking, and if you weren't no worries, because I think you have a lot to learn when it comes to theology, and I only pay credence to what another christian would say about my personal beliefs.

 

Nevertheless;

 

Thanks for your excellent reply!

 

Peace on earth ~

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might say that if a small portion of a post is inaccurate we shouldn't let that harm the entire thing.

But, that's not what we do here, Rev. A flaw in one premise or assertion becomes a cancer and cascades throughout your entire argument.

 

Atheism literally means "not theist." It is no more a belief system than is a lack of belief in the easter bunny.

 

There are SOME atheists out there who state, "I believe there is no god," sure... but that group is marginalized and make up only a fractional percentage of most atheists. The vast majority, while clearly growing more exasperated and frustrated with believers by the day, will openly concede that they cannot be sure, so they are an agnostic atheist... a "6.9" on the 7-point scale of belief (where 1 = absolute certainty in god and 7 = absolute certainty in no god).

 

Either way... we've flogged this deceased equine sufficiently in countless threads already. The consensus is in. Atheism is NOT an ideology or belief system, and attempting to treat it as such misrepresents the position of those with whom you are engaging in debate (aka strawman).

 

 

 

Now... with that said... your position is that theists (I believe you referred specifically to Christians, so let's stick with that) get their moral instruction from the bible. It is the teachings of the bible which tells them what is good behavior and what is bad. Is that a fair representation of your stance? That morals flow from the bible, which is itself a conduit of gods word?

 

 

Well... Let's look at that for a moment, shall we? If your morals come from the bible, then why don't you stone your wife on your wedding night if she's not a virgin? Why don't you murder homosexuals, or kill the women and children in neighboring towns who hold different beliefs? Why don't you keep slaves and beat them to a bloody pulp (as long as you don't harm their eyes or teeth, your bible says that's moral behavior).

 

You don't do any of those things because you know they are wrong. You know they are immoral, which is good... and which is correct.

 

However, what that proves is that you are picking and choosing which stories in your good book by which to live, and you are disregarding those instructions which don't fit in with your social expectations in the modern age.

 

Do you know what that means? It means your bible CANNOT, by definition, be your source of morals since you are ignoring parts of its teachings, and the source which informs your decision to ignore those teachings must be derived from outside the book... From your society itself, and the expectations put on you by your peers and fellow humans.

 

While we're desparately off-topic now, and I wish you'd followed my suggestion on how to focus your discussion, I encourage you to think a bit on the argument I've put forth above. Your bible cannot be the source of your knowledge of good and bad since you pick and choose which parts of that bible to follow and which to ignore. The knowledge informing those choices must, by definition, be derived external to the book itself, despite your continued assertions to the contrary.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never met a human being Christian or other wise who even came close to approaching the moral ideal. I've seen horrendous criminals who claimed to be doing gods works and could back it up in Scriptures. I've known atheists who were as close to being "good" people as it's possible to be. The very idea that religion by definition produce better or more moral individuals or a society is flawed beyond any reckoning. Yes Hitler was a monster but what about all the good god fearing people who followed him? If religion really ruled the lives of humans it should be impossible for a Hitler to gain power anywhere. Humanism is like religion a slave to the people who represent it. I would trust no one simply due to their claimed beliefs or dogma. I prefer to be a free thinker, sadly the first thing people do when they find out you are a free thinker is to tell how you should freely think. take your dogma, humanism or religious and keep them out of the sun, that's where they belong.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go on and on about how you are a free thinker, which I think is a good thing and have said many times to each his own. But then you say that the first thing people do is try to tell you how to think, then you come up with this Gem " take your dogma, humanism or religious and keep them out of the sun, that's where they belong....." I suppose its ok for you to tell other people how to think eh?

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infinite, I want to say something before we go on. I respect your opinions and hope my abrasive style does not effect our 'friendship'. I realize that many of you at this forum don't like religion for a reason, and I can understand that. I hope you guys understand that I may of been harmed by the science community just as you and some others here have been harmed in some way by religion. So maybe we can attempt to respect each others pain and learn to like each other personally. Heck we may learn something new!

 

Just a thought brought about by a beautiful creature ~

 

; }>

 

 

But, that's not what we do here, Rev. A flaw in one premise or assertion becomes a cancer and cascades throughout your entire argument.

 

Well I simply disagree! This originally started with me using the term secular humanist/atheist. How is that incorrect? And even then I agreed to leave the atheist part out but you insist on bringing it up. Additionally I wasn’t making a valid formal logical argument and had no premises, I was simply stating my beliefs.

 

Atheism literally means "not theist." It is no more a belief system than is a lack of belief in the easter bunny.

 

Again, maybe that is what it means to you but I provided independent evidence that indicated otherwise! Valid online definitions. In the future you would define atheism as it applies to your thread or reply that would be the only way that anyone could be sure what you mean, simply because of the numerous definitions of atheism.

 

There are SOME atheists out there who state, "I believe there is no god," sure... but that group is marginalized and make up only a fractional percentage of most atheists. The vast majority, while clearly growing more exasperated and frustrated with believers by the day, will openly concede that they cannot be sure, so they are an agnostic atheist... a "6.9" on the 7-point scale of belief (where 1 = absolute certainty in god and 7 = absolute certainty in no god).

 

As I said yes there are different kinds of atheists. I don’t know the percentages. However I do know that in my experience there are many more agnostic atheists than hard or strong atheists.

 

Either way... we've flogged this deceased equine sufficiently in countless threads already. The consensus is in. Atheism is NOT an ideology or belief system, and attempting to treat it as such misrepresents the position of those with whom you are engaging in debate (aka strawman).

 

Hee hee, yes the hoss is not happy! But please be aware I have not called atheism a ideology and have mentioned this several times in this thread. I would only agree that strong atheism is not a belief system and may even change that in the near future. But for now I would agree that strong atheism is not a belief system, by belief system I mean believing in something.

 

Now... with that said... your position is that theists (I believe you referred specifically to Christians, so let's stick with that) get their moral instruction from the bible. It is the teachings of the bible which tells them what is good behavior and what is bad. Is that a fair representation of your stance? That morals flow from the bible, which is itself a conduit of gods word?

 

Yes specifically the new testament I am a red letter open theist Christian.

 

Well... Let's look at that for a moment, shall we? If your morals come from the bible, then why don't you stone your wife on your wedding night if she's not a virgin?

 

That’s old law and Jesus changed it. We obey only the new testament.

 

Why don't you murder homosexuals,

 

Jesus did not condemn homosexuality anywhere in the bible that’s why.

 

or kill the women and children in neighboring towns who hold different beliefs? Why don't you keep slaves and beat them to a bloody pulp (as long as you don't harm their eyes or teeth, your bible says that's moral behavior).

 

Again that’s because I follow the teachings of Jesus.

 

You don't do any of those things because you know they are wrong. You know they are immoral, which is good... and which is correct.

 

No, I live by the teachings of Jesus. I would be happy to suggest a book on basic theology that describes why the old law testament was changed to only include the ten commandts.

 

However, what that proves is that you are picking and choosing which stories in your good book by which to live, and you are disregarding those instructions which don't fit in with your social expectations in the modern age.

 

No my friend basic theology demands I follow only the new testament and the teachings of Jesus. The only old testament law we follow is the ten commandants as per scripture.

 

Do you know what that means?

 

That you should attend bible study? Come on down you can sit next to me!

 

It means your bible CANNOT, by definition, be your source of morals since you are ignoring parts of its teachings, and the source which informs your decision to ignore those teachings must be derived from outside the book... From your society itself, and the expectations put on you by your peers and fellow humans.

 

Wrong Jesus changed most of the old law, that is why we are called Christians we follow the teachings of Christ not Moses or the law of Moses. Those laws were written for a people that did not have Jesus to die for their sins therefore they had certain laws to follow.

 

we're desparately off-topic now, and I wish you'd followed my suggestion on how to focus your discussion, I encourage you to think a bit on the argument I've put forth above.

 

Well I didn’t start this line of questioning you did! Still this is my thread and its ok as its vaguely on topic.

 

Your bible cannot be the source of your knowledge of good and bad since you pick and choose which parts of that bible to follow and which to ignore. The knowledge informing those choices must, by definition, be derived external to the book itself, despite your continued assertions to the contrary.

 

Not true. Scripture defines precisely what modern Christians must do, obey the ten commandants and the teachings of Jesus. That’s all, simple huh?

 

 

 

I am running in safe mode and my notebook is in the truck, besides I don’t do vids it’s a personal thing.

 

Thanks for your very kind post !

 

Peace on earth

 

~

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, to summarize your response, basically you say to avoid the old testament, and follow the new... that the teachings of Jesus and the new testament inform your morality, and does so for most Christians.

 

You also said that Jesus changed most of the old law. I find your ascertain fascinating, since in Matthew 5:17, Jesus said this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Quite simply, this shows how Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He doesn’t object to the cruelties of the Old Testament.

 

 

 

But... with that said... Let me concede the point so we can move forward. The new testament is what gives you your morality. Fine. But, let's explore that, then...

 

You, like many Christians, assert that Jesus went beyond all of the barbarism and immorality so readily found in the old testament, and that he provides you with a basic doctrine of pure love and toleration. This, too, is false. Here are just a small handful of examples supporting my point:

 

Luke 16:17, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 20–21, John 7:19

 

 

The words of the passages above leave no doubt, and make rather clear that anyone who believes that Jesus only taught the Golden Rule and love of one’s neighbor really needs to go back and read the New Testament again. When doing so, you should pay special attention to the quote unquote "morality" that we'll see if Jesus ever returns to earth (for example, in 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, 2:8; Hebrews 10:28–29; 2 Peter 3:7; and all of Revelation). Yeah... be sure to pay special attention at revelation. That's some juicy "morality" in there. :hihi:

 

This is all without mention of how your petty little god needs so desperately for people like me to believe in him, and how he teaches that I will burn for all eternity in a fiery hot place despite all of my good deeds and kindness... all for failure to inflate his iron age male ego. For clearly stated reasons of “vengeance,” in your good book god has willed that non-believers will need to suffer constant physical torture for eternity. No parole. No pardon. No hope. God’s behaviour and teachings certainly don't qualify as “moral” by any human metric that is not laden with delusion and blindness.

 

 

So, with that said, your point about the bible being your source of morality is falling rather short. We are social animals. We exist in troops and as a pack. It was through evolution that morality was selected for, as those animals who went against the group were tossed out and lost access to resources and reproductive vehicles... ultimately dying in greater number and reproducing less than those who DID follow the standards of the group.

 

The bible hijacked the pre-existing tendency in humans to act morally... not the other way around, and your assertions to the contrary cannot change that fact. Nor can your assertions to the contrary change that non-believers are as (and often more) moral as any believer, which doesn't bode well for your suggestion that the bible is the source of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You go on and on about how you are a free thinker, which I think is a good thing and have said many times to each his own. But then you say that the first thing people do is try to tell you how to think, then you come up with this Gem " take your dogma, humanism or religious and keep them out of the sun, that's where they belong....." I suppose its ok for you to tell other people how to think eh?

 

; }>

 

In everything you say are lies, no one who follows the teachings of the bible can say to each his own. Everything about religion is to convert those who do not believe, to make others admit the teachings are true. To each his own? What a joke! A day, no, an hour, seldom goes by that i am not bombarded by someone trying to tell me that only they have the real truth, that their way is the only way. Religion hijacks every aspect of the very society they despise to convert every one to reject the very idea of free thinking, the idea of to each his own. I was trying be "nice" since you misinterpreted it I'll put it bluntly, take your dogma and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say:

You see the ten commandants are the ONLY morals that we should not ‘break’. I would agree with you that as long as man has been self aware he possessed some sort of morals. But again for Christians there are only one moral code that we should not disobey and that is the ten commandants.

...only to then say...

That’s old law and Jesus changed it. We obey only the new testament.

How does this hold? The Old Testament is where the Ten Commandments are embedded. The Old Testaments also tells you to stone homosexuals and prostitutes. You can't pick and choose, and decide to live by the New Testament exclusively, yet include only certain aspects of the Old. Your entire interpretation of this Book is subjective, and does not agree with the final chapter in Revelations, where you, a Christian, is told that this Entire Book is the Truth, and were you to change it in any way (like selectively going around picking and choosing what you want to believe and discard the rest), you are doomed to hell.

 

It's these kind of incongruities that simply makes me attach no value at all to belief systems, like Christianity, for instance. It's self-delusion writ large. You pick and choose amongst the writings what fits with the modern world, which merely implies that the issuer of your particular set of morals is modern society - not the Good Book, my man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am no longer watching this topic (for about a week) due to several issues one being I am not sure of the posting guidelines. I have asked the administrator for help in understanding a few "guidelines" and rules. If and when he or she responds I will be able to post again without restraint.

 

; }>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...